Dear Mayor Burnham,
before I tackle the next bit, I want to make a very important point. The studies cited in the Observer and Guardian articles do not represent current levels of RF frequencies. 2G and 3G were the levels which were assessed in these studies therefore the studies are not representative of the current 4G and imminent 5G frequencies. ”Franz Adlkofer was shocked when results came back showing genetic damage, damage that was 10 times more likely with the new, more powerful, 3G.’ How does that translate into the genetic damage 4G and 5G (in concert with 2G and 3G) frequencies could potentially cause?
Also, bear in mind that it took, on average, thirty years for cancer from cigarette smoking to express itself. Taking relativity into account, in the studies using rats, a rat’s lifespan might not be able to accommodate full expression of the latency, only human bodies can truly represent it. The issue of latency is fundamental to any discussion on cell phone health effects.
To continue in the cherry picking vein.
Dr Grimes: ‘As other authors have pointed out,’
In response: …or rather, as one other like-minded author, David Gorski, has pointed out on his website, ‘Science Based Medicine’.
Dr Grimes: ‘the NTP results raise several questions about methodology and interpretation but certainly do not show RF leads to cancer.’
.In response:…I’ve covered this, drawing on three separate sources, in the previous email.
Dr Grimes: ‘Nor could a study in isolation answer this question – studies are essentially single data-points. What matters is whether consistent trends are seen across many studies. Indeed, a multitude of studies have been performed to this end, and as the World Health Organisation states, there has been no evidence of detrimental health effects: “A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” ‘
In response:…The World Health organisation has classed radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (which includes mobile phone radiation) as a 2B possible carcinogen. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf … From pdf. International Agency For Reseach on Cancer, World Health Organisation. ‘IARC classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.’ ‘Conclusion: Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that “the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.” Remember to bear in mind that this was back in 2011 and relates to now outmoded radiofrequency radiation levels.
Dr Grimes: ‘Instead of rats, we might consider human evidence. The 13-country Interphone study examined phone usage in more than 5,000 patients with brain tumours, concluding there was no causal relationship between phone use and brain tumours. ‘
In response: … https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18223-cellphones-and-cancer-interphone-cant-end-the-debate/ From New Scientist, December 2nd 2009, ‘Cell Phones and cancer: Interphone can’t end the debate: Design flaws. It is widely recognised that the design of Interphone was the best available at the time. Even so, it has major flaws that cast doubt on its ability to identify any cancer risk from cellphones.’
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/14/cell.phones.brain.tumor/index.html CNN News May 18th 2010 ‘Study fails to end debate on cell phone, cancer link’, ‘But design flaws on the Interphone study, which is partly industry funded, suggest that the latest results cannot be taken to mean that cell phones and brain cancer are unrelated, critics say.’
From Dr Devra Davies’ book ‘When negative effects are found, the cell phone industry has gone out of its way to hide it.’ Dr Davies, ”There’s a conflict of interest , because the Interphone study was partly funded by the cell phone industry, and that most of the research doesn’t look at heavy users and the small parts that do found a doubling, or even quadrupling, of tumours.”
Dr Grimes: ‘Other studies have been similarly robust; a Danish cohort study followed 358,403 people for 27 years, again finding no link between phone usage and tumour rates. The scientific consensus to date is that there is no evidence linking cancer to mobile phones. To ignore strong evidence against a conjecture while inflating weak studies is textbook cherry-picking, where data that might contradict a particular hypothesis is jettisoned, and only evidence fitting the desired story retained. This is antithetical to science, where the totality of evidence must be assessed in concert.’
In response:… Some comments on the ‘similarly robust’ Danish Cohort Study from experts other than Dr Grime:
Dariusz Leszczynski PhD
STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Finland
‘Now, let’s look at another of the largest studies, the recent update of the Danish Cohort. It is the largest study because the authors started with the population of 723 421 subscription records in Denmark for years of 1982 – 1995. However, their information on exposure of people to mobile phone radiation is even worse than in INTERPHONE. …So, the exposure information in INTERPHONE was, in practice, not reliable if not outright scientifically non-existent.’
Denis L Henshaw, PhD,
Emeritus Professor of Human Radiation Effects
University of Bristol in U.K.
‘This seriously flawed study misleads the public and decision makers about the safety of mobile phone use. I consider that their claims are worthless.’
Alasdair Philips, B.Sc.(Eng), DAgE, Powerwatch UK
Member of the UK Department of Health Stakeholder Group on ELF EMFs and the U.K. Health Protection Agency’s EMF Discussion Group
‘ …This study uses seriously flawed data to make a flawed analysis and should be condemned as misleading spin.’
Devra L. Davis, PhD, MPH
Cancer Epidemiologist and President of Environmental Health Trust
‘Unsurprising, biased and misleading.’
My next email will cover the chapter titled ‘Not all radiation is bad’.
I need a cup of tea.
Very best wishes,